Friday, October 01, 2010

SAHMAT's Statement on Ayodhya Verdict



29, Feroze Shah Road,New Delhi-110001

Telephone- 23381276/ 23070787


Date 1.10.2010

Statement on Ayodhya Verdict

The judgement delivered by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Dispute on 30 September 2010 has raised serious concerns because of the way history, reason and secular values have been treated in it. First of all, the view that the Babri Masjid was built at the site of a Hindu temple, which has been maintained by two of the three judges, takes no account of all the evidence contrary to this fact turned up by the Archaeological Survey of India's own excavations: the presence of animal bones throughout as well as of the use of 'surkhi' and lime mortar (all characteristic of Muslim presence) rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque. The ASI's controversial Report which claimed otherwise on the basis of 'pillar bases' was manifestly fraudulent in its assertions since no pillars were found, and the alleged existence of 'pillar bases' has been debated by archaeologists. It is now imperative that the site notebooks, artefacts and other material evidence relating to the ASI's excavation be made available for scrutiny by scholars, historians and archaeologists.

No proof has been offered even of the fact that a Hindu belief in Lord Rama's birth-site being the same as the site of the mosque had at all existed before very recent times, let alone since 'time immemorial'. Not only is the judgement wrong in accepting the antiquity of this belief, but it is gravely disturbing that such acceptance should then be converted into an argument for deciding property entitlement. This seems to be against all principles of law and equity.

          The most objectionable part of the judgement is the legitimation it provides to violence and muscle-power. While it recognizes the forcible break-in of 1949 which led to placing the idols under the mosque-dome, it now recognizes, without any rational basis, that the transfer put the idols in their rightful place. Even more astonishingly, it accepts the destruction of the mosque in 1992 (in defiance, let it be remembered, of the Supreme Court's own orders) as an act whose consequences are to be accepted, by transferring the main parts of the mosque to those clamouring for a temple to be built.

          For all these reasons we cannot but see the judgement as yet another blow to the secular fabric of our country and the repute of our judiciary. Whatever happens next in the case cannot, unfortunately, make good what the country has lost.

Romila Thapar

K.M. Shrimali

D.N. Jha

K.N. Panikkar

Amiya Kumar Bagchi

Iqtidar Alam Khan

Shireen Moosvi

Jaya Menon

Irfan Habib

Suvira Jaiswal

Kesavan Veluthat

D. Mandal

Ramakrishna Chatterjee

Aniruddha Ray

Arun Bandopadhyaya

A. Murali

V. Ramakrishna

Arjun Dev

R.C. Thakran

H.C. Satyarthi

Amar Farooqui

B.P. Sahu

Biswamoy Pati

Lata Singh

Utsa Patnaik

Zoya Hasan

Prabhat Patnaik

C.P. Chandrasekhar

Jayati Ghosh

Archana Prasad

Shakti Kak

V.M. Jha

Prabhat Shukla

Indira Arjun Dev

Mahendra Pratap Singh

Ram Rahman

M.K. Raina

Sohail Hashmi

Parthiv Shah

Madan Gopal Singh

Madhu Prasad

Vivan Sundaram

Geeta Kapur

Rajendra Prasad

Anil Chandra

Rahul Verma

Indira Chandrasekhar

Sukumar Muralidharan

Supriya Verma

N.K. Sharma

S.Z.H. Jafri

Farhat Hasan

Shalini Jain

Santosh Rai

Najaf Haider

R. Gopinath

R.P. Bahuguna

G.P. Sharma

Sitaram Roy

O.P. Jaiswal

K.K. Sharma



sagnik banerjee said...

itzzz a big shame for our country..... being a student of history and a citizen of a so called secular country it is really hard for me to accept the verdict , which is based on some mythology and belief of a particular religion rather the historical and archaeological evidences taking into account ......

salute to these eminent people in the field of history for their concern .......

Srinivasa Rao said...

This is more of a loser's statement. If the judiciary goes against your claim they are bad otherwise they are great. It appears more like sushma swaraj saying she would trounce her head if Sonia Gandhi becomes prime minister. Just show some dignity when you lose either a court battle or elections in a democracy.These so called "eminent historians" (please read as CPM's pracharaks) can collect all the bones and "surkhi" to supreme court to prove their point.
On a lighter note: Russian people got upset with Lenin within 50 years that they couldn't even stand his statue firget about his ideology. Somehow 10 avatars of Vishnu remained for the last 2000 years even by your own distorted history.

Anonymous said...

The best place on earth for communists is China. You will love that country. You communists are the biggest abusers of democracy.

Anonymous said...

At first glance the Court's decision to trifurcate this piece of land may seem to be the best suited in the circumstances. But looking at it rationally, the judgment seems to misconstrued & flawed. It is more a political settlement to the dispute.

Though the case involved religious issues that are deeply inimical to public interest, the court should have avoided giving legal force to a subjective or perceived opinion or in this case belief. The judiciary should have purely limited itself to remain within the legal framework.

The precepts of any one community cannot, by force of their being in a religious majority, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.

The courts sought to uphold and defend the perceived beliefs that this particular piece of land was the birth place of Ram. This would mean laws being imposed not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion.

Unfortunately, this decision by the Allahbad High Court would open up the pandora's box & be a judicial precedent & legal doctrine for all such claims on other religious sites in the future.

gorky chakraborty said...

atleast Sahhmat could speak out the truth, thanks..after the judgement the only thing that mattered to the media as well as intellectuals seemed that India should move on etc etc.. but the cosr of that moving forward was never thought of.. the judgement seemed to be the biggest roadblock not only to the secular fabric but also to the ethos of all encompassing Indian civilization...the courts cannot judge matters of belief and so when it pinpoints the place where Ram was born it makes a mockery of justice.. alongwith Babri demolotion the entire case was nothing but the barbicue of what post-colonial India stood for